Notes on Opportunity to Be Heard

     1. In Matthews v. Eldridge the government argued that disability benefits, unlike welfare benefits, do not automatically involve financial need. While this might be true logically, in many cases disability benefits are all that stand between the recipient and destitution. In the early 2000s, an attorney in Kentucky named Eric Conn ran a fraudulent operation that sought social security benefits on behalf of disabled workers, many of them coal miners or other physical laborers. Unbeknownst to the clients, Conn had made a dishonest deal with an administrative judge in the Social Security administration so that all of his clients would be approved for benefits, whether or not they would automatically qualify. Many, probably most, and perhaps even all, would have qualified for benefits under an honest process, but that would have meant more work for Conn. When the dishonest scheme came to light, with more than $550 million in benefits awarded to Conn clients, the Social Security administration, without hearings, canceled benefits to all Conn clients. The financial shock was so great that several committed suicide. Four years after benefits were canceled, litigation was ongoing as to both the individual cases and the process. 

     2. Can you state the Matthews v. Eldridge test? The Doehr test? Do you understand the difference?